Talk:Ælfwald of East Anglia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 08:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

~~At one sentence the Beowulf section is a bit small (to say the least) can it be incorporated into another section or expanded~~ done Hel-hama (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fouracre, Paul (2000). The Age of Charles Martel listed as a source but does not appear to have been used.~~ done Hel-hama (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Kylie, Edward (1911)

Kylie provided Ælfwald's letter, so source retained. Hel-hama (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Same for Plunkett, Steven (2005). Town Origins unless citation 27 is a typo Russo, Town Origins, p. 172~~

sorted Hel-hama (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it is Russo, Daniel G. (1998). Suffolk has not been used or is the wrong title Suffolk/town origins~~

corrected Hel-hama (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done Hel-hama (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all Fryde refs amended to 'Fryde et al', as there's actually 3 authors involved. Hel-hama (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier books without an ISBN could have the OCLC number added (just a suggestion)

Not a period or subject I am familiar with, but found it interesting (if only trying to get around the pronunciation). I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]